I’m off to read the slow fashion post. Honestly, I need to see a better discussion of slow fashion, because I think people are talking about different things. I, too, was interviewed for the CSM article. But I’m not even convinced that “slow fashion” is a useful framework within which to discuss the issues we face.

I think the only sustainable action is to work out how to reduce all forms of waste, (including inefficiency) and reuse the stuff we have in existence already. Call it fast fashion or slow fashion, ultimately it’s just semantics, and I’ve been wracking my brain trying to think of how, in my tiny way, I can use the efficiencies of “fast fashion” to achieve the sustainability people assume when they hear “slow fashion”. I know I can no longer accept wastage so casually.

Seriously, one problem with the concept of sustainable fashion is that everyone assumes it’s deadly dull. Armies of navy blue suits a la dress for success, tsunamis of khakis and polo shirts.. eeck. People might feel different about the concept if they could conceive of clothes that fit them well, that truly reflect their personality, made from good-quality fabrics (and interfacing, zippers etc) that really last. For instance, you could say my coats are slow because well, I have a hard time technically, it takes me forever to cough one up. But then again I’ve never worn one I made for less than 15 years. On that scale they look less slow. And they’re not boring, thank you very much.

So do I feel put-upon wearing over and over something which I like, which keeps me really warm, which is exactly what I wanted and needed? No way. On the opposite, I was really mad in the 80s when I kept making stuff out of rayon and it bit the dust in 2 years. There is something very comforting about familiar clothes, when they’re really right for you. Sadly, most young people have never known anything like that…

I also enjoyed the comments made by other people on this post.

You were hammered for repeating (over and over) the points I’d made in the book (that everyone on the forum kept telling you to read) and arguments that I’d made on the blog (which again, everyone posted links to) or previous forum entries (ditto). Case in point is this entry. It’s useful to rehash material if you haven’t read the previous related entries. Most people only read what floats to the top -but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been said before and it doesn’t mean I’ve somehow come around and seen the light at this late date. You should read some of those entries I wrote in 2006 and 2007 about a recession I thought was looming and most people were too polite to call me crazy.

You got “hammered” because people didn’t feel you were listening because you didn’t follow up to read the entries they linked to and process it within the context of your often terse statements. I mean, it was great you came to the same conclusions I’d come to, in some cases 12 years earlier and points that several others had also eloquently written previous to your joining us, but you weren’t telling us anything we hadn’t discussed already. We wanted you to move beyond that to tell us something new, with new ideas or a fresh spin to amend what we hadn’t read or written before . Nobody disagreed with your central arguments so it would have been helpful to put a fine point to it (as we asked you to do) in ways that were applicable within the framework of the gamut of experiences. Anybody can make their way work for themselves. I’m dogmatic enough for both of us; the skill lies in devising solutions that are appropriate for the range of potential scenarios.

Stay tuned for part two. It builds on more ground I’ve already covered (as long as 12 years ago) and that you’ll say you also said last year but that nobody listened to you.